An interesting question that rolls up after many an election is what next for the former PM. Some move into relative anonymity, some become something akin to statesmen (not that anyone could have predicted that while those persons were in office) and other appear regularly to embarrass us.
Malcolm Turnbull is an excellent example. He didn't wait for the Opposition to kick him out at an election, he lost the plot in his own party room. Instead of sinking into anonymity, he regularly reappears to take pot shots at those who replaced him. Much of what he says is truly embarrassing.
Mr K. Rudd also comes back to haunt us regularly, as he demonstrates why his party turned on him to the general public.
But the worst of the lot, in my humble opinion, is the man who gave us 'the recession we had to have', Paul Keating. Yes, Paul Keating of the Banana Republic. :(
I do not warm easily to politicians of any stripe, but Mr. Keating is probably the one that I have least time for, both as PM and afterwards. He always looked like Bram Stoker's version of Count Dracula for starters. Then there was that voice that made Julia Gillard's look promising. And, last but far from least, what what he actually says.
He may be getting older, but his mouth still makes me cringe every time Mr. Keating opens it.
His latest effort was one of his most remarkable: a defence for the policies of totalitarian China. My God, has he hit a new low. He may have wished for the power that China's President Xi has and misuses daily; to remain in office until death, to use the secret police to remove political opponents, to use economic muscle to bully other polities, to remake society in his image (and that always gave me nightmares) and to take over and ruin perfectly good democratic states (Hong Kong and what he wants for Taiwan).
I mind none of these to my liking, yet Mr. Keating seems to think they are good things.
Paul Keating said Taiwan was “not a vital Australian interest” and labelled it a “civil matter” for China. The conquest of a free people by a totalitarian state is a 'civil matter'? I'm sorry, but I find such talk truly nauseous. It reminds me of Britain selling out Czechoslovakia in the days leading to World War II.
And if Mr. Keating cannot remember what happened after that, he is even stupider than I ever thought he was.
Not sure we should be allowing the use of the word "Ch..k" on this platform.
Not sure we should be allowing the use of the word "Ch..k" on this platform.
Probably right. But sometimes it is not easy to find the exact word that best fits the person involved. I would never use the term 'chink' to a Chinese person, even one to whom I had no respect. But President Xi and others of his ilk, make normal phraseology unsatisfactory.
I had great homes for China a few years ago. The previous Emperor had used his reign to dismantle the things built up by Chairman Mao. Chinese leaders no longer ruled for life. Chinese people were the best off they had been in centuries, if ever. Corruption was down. The 'cult of personality' was on the way out and Chinese people had more political freedoms that they had experienced. They were heading down the road to being the sort of state a person could respect.
What do we have now? The same sort of Imperial Bureaucracy that weighed China down for centuries. Power for life. Granted that power is not inherited, as it was in the days of the Empire, but it is still gifted, nor earnt, to the favourite of the present ruler. The people have been repressed to a level even Chairman Mao could appreciate. China is rattling the sabres and trying to expand at the expense of everybody else. Chinese people have no political freedom. The Chinese security apparatus has taken on the power and significance that the NKVD did under Iosef Stalin. The Chinese economy is going backwards at a rate of knots. and the leader wishes to hide his shortcomings in Nationalist rhetoric and threats.
None of these might be new, not even to China, but they are a serious backwards step. President Xi is single handedly creating the next Cold War.
And Keating appears to admire this bozo! Scott Morrison may be getting flack for his 'spin' (not saying he doesn't deserve it either), but it is nothing compared to President Xi. And Keating passes it all off as being good?
The trouble is the use of terms like that can be used to generalise both sides of the argument and as such it should be removed.
By and on whose authority LP? Tired of saying it, but I use that term to talk about their government, NOT the general population. That's the third time I've made that clear.
By and on whose authority LP? Tired of saying it, but I use that term to talk about their government, NOT the general population. That's the third time I've made that clear.
It doesn't matter what you mean by it, or how often you explain it, what matters is it's use delivers an opportunity for others to manipulate a claim of what it means and that can tarnish the whole site as well as all it's participants!
I also see it as hypocritical to leave that term intact, because I'm sure if I used an analogous term for a Southern European politicians or bureaucrats I'd be shouted down and banned here, I believe some have been banned in the past for such terms. The fact that term is used and nothing happens is two-faced.
It doesn't matter what you mean by it, or how often you explain it, what matters is it's use delivers an opportunity for others to manipulate a claim of what it means and that can tarnish the whole site as well as all it's participants!
Again, an opinion. Yours. Leave it alone.
Not sure we should be allowing the use of the word "Ch..k" on this platform.
Yes, its use in that context is a clear breach of our code of conduct - "Statements that are bigoted, hateful or racially offensive." - and I have deleted the post.
Capcom can re-post if he wishes, using an alternative descriptor for Xi; there are plenty to choose from.
Yes, its use in that context is a clear breach of our code of conduct - "Statements that are bigoted, hateful or racially offensive." - and I have deleted the post.
Capcom can re-post if he wishes, using an alternative descriptor for Xi; there are plenty to choose from.
You may wish to input that term into the search function in the top right hand corner, and you will find two other posts that deserve to be deleted.
You may wish to input that term into the search function in the top right hand corner, and you will find two other posts that deserve to be deleted.
I found the term in one other post, one that I was already aware of, but it wasn't used in an offensive manner.
Personally I would never use a racist, sexist or bigoted word to describe even the most abhorrent person from another race, religion, gender... and so on. It has the very real potential to hurt many, even most, of that race (or others) and only serves to perpetuate ugliness... bigotry, to use a more correct word in this instant.
Criticism of any one individual should, IMHO, never stoop to using a racist term for said individual. But rather words or phrases that express disdain for that individual alone, irrespective of race, gender, sexual preference, religion and so on. As far as the leader of the CCP goes, I'd probably use words like, 'cold-hearted, manipulative, evil, dangerous pr1ck'... effectively separating him from the Chinese people as a whole.
Criticism of any one individual should, IMHO, never stoop to using a racist term for said individual. But rather words or phrases that express disdain for that individual alone, irrespective of race, gender, sexual preference, religion and so on. As far as the leader of the CCP goes, I'd probably use words like, 'cold-hearted, manipulative, evil, dangerous pr1ck'... effectively separating him from the Chinese people as a whole.
Yep, I understand
@capcom and his explanation, but it's a dangerous turn of phrase that can easily be mistaken for a more sinister and general perspective. There are plenty of ways to sledge Xi and criticise his politics without going down that path!
You'll probably align with this, but in my younger days spending time in RSLs I was sometimes taken aback by the comraderies on display around dates like today and Anzac Day. The RSL's I attended had diverse memberships, English, Italian, German, Greek, Pacific Islander, Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, Vietnamese and Japanese. All would come together and reminisce to decry war, probably across all venues you might find all nations. While some retained an underlying hatred that did surface occasionally, most enjoyed an understanding that war was war, the enemy was not the people now standing besides you having a beer but some abstract political or social concept.
I have a lot of close friends who now live in SE Asian or on the Asian Peninsula regions having fought in the Vietnam or Korean war, they don't associate the people with the conflict, and they embrace those cultures. I realise not all find peace in this regard.
We're a mile off topic but maybe this bit gives a bit of an overall perspective and appreciation of how things can change and develop.
https://www.weareresonate.com/2016/05/is-chink-really-an-offensive-term/
...and back to former PM's
Malcom Fraser lost his pants but he was a much better ex- PM than a working one.
I get Capcom might have used a word that some find offensive but I understand his sentiment and frustration towards the Chinese Government and its regime of terror. When you see your country sold out and bullied by a country hellbent on world domination that have no regard for human or animal life you probably lose your sensitivity with how you express your opinions and your choice of words.
Yep, I understand @capcom and his explanation, but it's a dangerous turn of phrase that can easily be mistaken for a more sinister and general perspective. There are plenty of ways to sledge Xi and criticise his politics without going down that path!
You'll probably align with this, but in my younger days spending time in RSLs I was sometimes taken aback by the comraderies on display around dates like today and Anzac Day. The RSL's I attended had diverse memberships, English, Italian, German, Greek, Pacific Islander, Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, Vietnamese and Japanese. All would come together and reminisce to decry war, probably across all venues you might find all nations. While some retained an underlying hatred that did surface occasionally, most enjoyed an understanding that war was war, the enemy was not the people now standing besides you having a beer but some abstract political or social concept.
I have a lot of close friends who now live in SE Asian or on the Asian Peninsula regions having fought in the Vietnam or Korean war, they don't associate the people with the conflict, and they embrace those cultures. I realise not all find peace in this regard.
Brought a tear to my eye reading this, Spotted One. As you no doubt realise, I have experienced this as well... in Asia and back home.
There was an interesting doco called
Fog of War. It focussed on Robert Strange McNamara (and yes, that really is his middle name rather than an insult). He was the controversial Secretary of Defence under LBJ as the Vietnam War escalated. It was an intriguing doco as it was like an interview but was interspersed with film of various events he'd influenced, such as the incendiary bombing of Tokyo and of course the war in Vietnam. On the one hand, it would be easy to regard him as a cold-hearted monster, but he came across as a friendly and engaging intellectual who pondered philosophical issues raised by his own decisions.
At one point, he noted that many years after the Vietnam War had ended, he had the opportunity of meeting his opposite number in the then North Vietnamese Government. Wikipedia notes,
In November 1995, McNamara returned to Vietnam, this time visiting Hanoi. Despite his role as one of the architects of Operation Rolling Thunder, McNamara met with a surprisingly warm reception, even from those who survived the bombing raids, and was often asked to autograph pirate editions of In Retrospect which had been illegally translated and published in Vietnam. During his visit, McNamara met his opposite number during the war, General Võ Nguyên Giáp who served as North Vietnam's Defense Minister. The American historian Charles Neu who was present at the McNamara-Giáp meeting observed the differences in the style of the two men with McNamara repeatedly interrupting Giáp to ask questions, usually related to something numerical, while Giáp gave a long leisurely monologue, quoting various Vietnamese cultural figures such as poets, that began with Vietnamese revolts against China during the years 111 BC-938 AD when Vietnam was a Chinese province. Neu wrote his impression was that McNamara was a figure who thought in the short term while Giáp thought in the long term.
In the doco, McNamara admits it blew his mind when Giáp said to him something like, "Why did you fear that we would form a powerful communist bloc with the Chinese? Didn't you know that we fought the Chinese for a thousand years?" McNamara lamented that he should have realised it at the time.
So, even the architects of the Vietnam War were able to see the human side of their opponents rather than just their ideology, once the fog of war had lifted.